The GOP and its Malice in Wonderland attitude

Republicans lost the political battle on extending unemployment benefits Tuesday when the Senate voted 60-40 to end a filibuster and allow the vote to take place. Once the Senate takes that final vote, the bill will go to the White House for President Obama’s signature and benefits to the longterm unemployed will resume.

Yet that final vote has yet to occur. After yesterday’s vote, Senate Republicans no longer have the power to stop the bill, but they are using Senate rules to delay passage as long as possible, a step that accomplishes absolutely nothing except to make the 2.5 million longterm unemployed wait another two days for the money they need to pay the rent, feed their children and keep the lights on.

In a saner, more compassionate world, such acts would be inconceivable.

192 comments Add your comment

Buckagon

July 21st, 2010
3:37 pm

Jay,

In a saner more compassionate world, it might be conceivable that liberals would forgive a Democrat Klansman who would lead the Senate for fifty years. Waitaminute, that already happened!

How much more money should Republicans allow to be spent before they start fighting against it? Put another way, why not just write everyone a check for say $50,000 a year? If as you say, it accomplishes nothing, then why the whole “malice in wonderland” hyperbole?

jewcowboy

July 21st, 2010
3:40 pm

“Dear Unemployed Person or Persons:

These are tough times for Americans. They’re especially tough times for people like you who have lost your jobs, and who still can’t find new ones, because of the Obama Recession, which started at approximately 12 noon on January 20, 2009, after eight years of nonstop growth and prosperity under President George W. Bush.

We sympathize with your situation, and we know how hard it must be to be without a job as the bills pile up. (Technically, we don’t really know how hard it must be, because we all have jobs — with lots of great benefits, too — but we can certainly imagine how hard it must be. We’d hate to be in your shoes right now.)”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-horowitz/out-of-work-republicans-s_b_652703.html?ir=Comedy

Buckagon

July 21st, 2010
3:41 pm

I’m starting to better understand the word “compassion”. It means, monetary spoils and fleecing of the treasury for any purpose liberals deem worthy.

No compassion is offered for those who will eventually have to pay the debt.

thomas

July 21st, 2010
3:43 pm

Jay,

how many years and months do you feel unemployment should be extended for?

Why were democrats oppossed to getting the bill passed at a much earlier time by using stimulous money that is unspent to pay for the extension?

In a more compassionate world…. demcorats would have passed the benifits they wanted to pass when presented an opportunity to pass them and pay for them. The dems chose not to and thus the 2.5 you seem so concerned for were forced to wait.

jewcowboy

July 21st, 2010
3:43 pm

Buckagon,

“No compassion is offered for those who will eventually have to pay the debt.”

Considering the Republican orgy of excess from 2001 – 2009, that is indeed rich…

StJ

July 21st, 2010
3:45 pm

But we shouldn’t have any long term unemployed! We passed the porkulus…er, stimulus bill, right? Why not give them some money from that? Oh, wait, that’s inconceivable.

thomas

July 21st, 2010
3:45 pm

jewcowboy

July 21st, 2010
3:43 pm

so are you advocating that 2 wrongs make a right?

the dems could have paid for this and had it settled earlier but THEY chose not to pay for it with Stimulus money.

David

July 21st, 2010
3:45 pm

“After yesterday’s vote, Senate Republicans no longer have the power to stop the bill, but they are using Senate rules to delay passage as long as possible, a step that accomplishes absolutely nothing except to make the 2.5 million long-term unemployed wait another two days for the money they need to pay the rent, feed their children and keep the lights on.” Here’s hoping those 2.5 mil are voters who’ll remember this when their Republican reps come up for re-election in November.

Finn McCool

July 21st, 2010
3:45 pm

There go those Republicans again – acting all christian like!

Jay

July 21st, 2010
3:46 pm

Buckagon, who will pay the additional debt created by extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which will have an impact on the debt 20 times or even 100 times that of helping the unemployed?

thomas

July 21st, 2010
3:47 pm

David

July 21st, 2010
3:45 pm

you do know that republicans offered a measure that would have passed a vote and all it was stating was that some of the unspent money from the stimulus bill be used to pay for these benifits. But democrats frefused and instead wanted to forge ahead with it unpaid.

thomas

July 21st, 2010
3:47 pm

Jay

July 21st, 2010
3:46 pm

Again 2 wrongs make a right how?

jewcowboy

July 21st, 2010
3:48 pm

thomas,

“so are you advocating that 2 wrongs make a right?”

No…I am saying Republicans are being disingenuous. They could care less about the deficit…or they would be looking at the defense budget, Social Security and Medicare for areas to cut…in combination with tax increases.

Jackie

July 21st, 2010
3:50 pm

The Repubs in the Senate and House are not too concerned about their political careers because they have support from their constituents. Wow!!!!

Yankee in Gooberville

July 21st, 2010
3:52 pm

yes, but that would require they have ‘hearts’. These inhuman creatures populating the GOP only care about the rich.

Jay

July 21st, 2010
3:53 pm

First, I don’t think we are dealing with two wrongs here. Unemployment benefits have been extended as emergency measures for many decades, without controversy and including in the early years of the Reagan administration.

Second, even if one were to accept the “two wrongs,” argument, one wrong is relatively minor in scale and would help those struggling, while the other is much larger in scale and would help those who by definition do not need it.

So why focus on the minor problem and ignore the major problem? What possible justification do you offer for that?

thomas

July 21st, 2010
3:53 pm

jewcowboy

July 21st, 2010
3:48 pm

quick judgment there.

Maybe they have learned the error of their ways, like Ms. Sherrod?

Why are some allowed to change and others you deem incapable?

jewcowboy

July 21st, 2010
3:54 pm

Bush signed 2 general unemployment benefits extensions in 2003 and in 2008, which extended benefits an additional 13 weeks with Republican support….I wonder what has changed?

jewcowboy

July 21st, 2010
3:55 pm

thomas,

“Why are some allowed to change and others you deem incapable?”

History.

Finn McCool

July 21st, 2010
3:56 pm

Jay, ummm, can you define need?

A man making $200,000 a year still has needs. Crepes and champagne aren’t cheap!

Intown

July 21st, 2010
3:56 pm

Jay you said it. The Repubs just gave the American people the political equivalent of raising their middle finger.

stands for decibels

July 21st, 2010
3:56 pm

Unemployment benefits have been extended as emergency measures for many decades, without controversy and including in the early years of the Reagan administration.

…as I’m sure our corporate media outlets are taking pains to make people aware when reporting this story, right?

NowReally

July 21st, 2010
3:56 pm

***Contest for the new Conservative Republican slogan of 2010 ****

NO Healthcare, NO Unemployment Insurance, NO Financial Reform, NO illegal Immigration

——– ONLY THE STUPID VOTES FOR ME ———-

thomas

July 21st, 2010
3:57 pm

Jay

July 21st, 2010
3:53 pm

Thats false if the Bush tax cuts expire and a new tax code is not voted on or the Bush cuts extended then ALL taxes will go up including those who need it as you say.

I see you remain silent on the point that Republicans offered on June 1 a plan that would have extended Unemployment benifit for 2 months then, and then again offered up to have stimulus money pay for it.

Who blocked that and showed no concern for the 2.5 million who need help? DEMOCRATS… odd you never mentioned that… I am sure it was not an intentional deletion?

MARK

July 21st, 2010
3:58 pm

So Jay just how much longer do we keep these benefits going? Was this neccesary maybe because Obozo cant create any jobs?

Finn McCool

July 21st, 2010
3:58 pm

I wonder what has changed?</i.

The GOP is like kids throwing a tantrum in Target. Lying on the floor kicking and screaming.

"We lost the last two elections BIG time but we still demand to be heard!"

thomas

July 21st, 2010
3:58 pm

jewcowboy

July 21st, 2010
3:55 pm

what about newly elected republicans what in their history shows that?

You do know the history of the democrats right?

Scooter

July 21st, 2010
3:59 pm

What is EOI? I googled it and didn’t get anything. Anyone please!

jewcowboy

July 21st, 2010
4:01 pm

thomas,

“what about newly elected republicans what in their history shows that?”

Ohh..I’m sorry…they are in leadership roles of course.

“You do know the history of the democrats right?”

Yep…the good and the bad.

Finn McCool

July 21st, 2010
4:03 pm

You have to hand it to the Republicans. Because they almost all vote how they are told to they are able to stay relevant. After those last two elections they could have just shriveled up and blown away but noooooo. They are still thumping their chests.

Like fish and guests, something is starting to stink.

thomas

July 21st, 2010
4:03 pm

Intown

July 21st, 2010
3:56 pm

Again,

you are aware that dems refused a proposal on June 1 that would have paid for a 2 month extension…. but DEMOCRATS refused, only wanting THEIR bill to pass, then again when a proposal to use unspent stimulus money to pay for extensionthe dems again said no.

Just again don’t trust jay for ALL of the facts. It wan’t just republicans or democrats.

BTW how long do you feel unemployment benfits should last for?
Any limit on the time and if so what?

jewcowboy

July 21st, 2010
4:04 pm

MARK

July 21st, 2010
4:04 pm

What last 2 elections are you referring to Finn?

thomas

July 21st, 2010
4:05 pm

jewcowboy

July 21st, 2010
4:01 pm

so why does your bias then allow for the democrats with a horrible history to change but republicans not?

double standard—-yes

You are the guy who only sees fouls on the other team and if the ref dare call one on your team the ref was wrong… does that about sum you up?

Finn McCool

July 21st, 2010
4:06 pm

Was this neccesary maybe because Obozo cant create any jobs?

Hmmm, they didn’t like it when the government created temporary jobs for the census, methinks they surely wouldn’t like it if Obama stepped in and started creating make-work jobs.

Finn McCool

July 21st, 2010
4:07 pm

2006 and 2008, Mark

Scooter

July 21st, 2010
4:08 pm

jewcowboy

July 21st, 2010
4:04 pm

I don’t think so jewcowboy. josef said if I were here more often that he would vote for me as EOI for the day. ??????

jewcowboy

July 21st, 2010
4:08 pm

thomas,

“so why does your bias then allow for the democrats with a horrible history to change but republicans not?”

Where did I? You mention Ms. Sherrod…an individual…I did not realize she was the Democratic Party…or that she was even a Democrat.

RF

July 21st, 2010
4:09 pm

“…which started at approximately 12 noon on January 20, 2009, after eight years of nonstop growth and prosperity under President George W. Bush.”

O..M..G- please tell me you don’t really believe that crap?? Check your facts, cowboy. The recession began officially in 2008 with the first “stimulus” to bail out Lehman Bros., et.al. The economy was already tanking, the derivatives frauds were coming apart at the seams, and the almight Bush era of deregulation and no monitoring of investments had wreaked its havoc. The “growth” was because of the defrauding of investors who bought mortgage securities derived from risky mortgages that were due to fail at some point. That point came sooner than Greenspan and Da Boys thought it would. The country was OFFICIALLY in a trillion + deficit situation long before January 20, 2009. Tax cuts, prescription drug coverage for Medicare, and two wars (none of which was ever funded in any budget) took a surplus in 2000 and turned it into a worldwide economic meltdown by 2008. Yeah, I really love that Bush economic policy. But hey, his buddies in the oil and insurance industries raked in the dough, so who cares about the “small people”?

Obviously, you’re employed and thus qualified to judge what the unemployed need. Having lived through several recessions in the last four decades, let me tell you that unemployment benefits are not some free ride to the easy life. You have to be looking for a job and putting in applications. Your benefits can be terminated if you’re just sitting at home on your butt.

Think about it folks. The benefits allow families to have money to spend- get it, SPEND. This creates demand for goods and services and increases the likelihood that companies providing those goods and services will be able to begin growing again, thus creating more jobs and less need for the benefits. It’s a cycle, and if you take out a significant portion of the consumers, you take out the businesses they would buy from otherwise. We don’t get economic growth by forcing people to live in tent cities and starve. We don’t get it by giving tax cuts to those with money and waiting for the “trickle down” economics to work. It never has, and never will.

MARK

July 21st, 2010
4:10 pm

So is anybody gonna answer the question…how long do these benefits continue?

jewcowboy

July 21st, 2010
4:10 pm

Scooter @ 4.08,

Sorry…in context I don’t think so either…no clue

Finn McCool

July 21st, 2010
4:11 pm

Your benefits can be terminated if you’re just sitting at home on your butt.

What if you’re just sitting on yer butt playing Call of Duty 4?

Shawny

July 21st, 2010
4:12 pm

What is inconceivable is that benefits could not be extended with cuts in other areas, or using money set aside for things like stimulus, this new level of bureacracy for the banking industry, etc.

Politicizing (n.), the art (read: crime) of B.S.ing citizens into supporting a proposal that supposedly improves the lives of the downtrodden without considering the facts behind said legislation.
Ex., universal healthcare coverage, unemployment benefits, etc.

This administration excels in politicizing. How could we possibly not support expanded healthcare and unemployment benefits? How inhuman.

Oh yeah.. the details and alternatives aren’t discussed.

jewcowboy

July 21st, 2010
4:12 pm

RF,

You might want to check out the link…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-horowitz/out-of-work-republicans-s_b_652703.html?ir=Comedy

See that word “comedy” in there…look before you leap.

joe matarotz

July 21st, 2010
4:14 pm

I saw a good one this morning – “Obama is like a college student with a credit card.” How true.

Jay

July 21st, 2010
4:15 pm

Vilsack has called a press conference for 4:45 to make a statement about the Sherrod case.

RW-(the original)

July 21st, 2010
4:16 pm

And one only need harken back to last November when President Obama proudly signed HR 3548 extending unemployment benefits and declaring how fiscally sound an idea it was that it was paid for within the legislation.

Peadawg

July 21st, 2010
4:17 pm

Jay, how are they paying for this? Are they using unspent stimulus money like the Republicans suggested?

MARK

July 21st, 2010
4:17 pm

Who cares Jay…did the white House make this big a deal about the Cambridge police officer after that screw up…..Na, he just said, lets have a beer

Midori

July 21st, 2010
4:19 pm

So why focus on the minor problem and ignore the major problem? What possible justification do you offer for that?

stupidity?

AmVet

July 21st, 2010
4:19 pm

“How much more money should Republicans allow to be spent before they start fighting against it?”

I noticed that he did not respond to Jay’s damning question regarding the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which will have an impact on the debt 20 times or even 100 times that of helping the unemployed.

And this goes to the blackened hearts of these Malices in Wonderland.

Which is altogether a horse of a different color from those lacking any adult concept of capitalism and how devastating the attempted corporate destruction of it has LONG-LASTING effects..

Was this neccesary maybe because Obozo cant create any jobs?

Finn McCool

July 21st, 2010
4:19 pm

Krugman set it out perfectly. To paraphrase, the time when unemployment benefits are bad is when the economy is doing good and companies can’t find enough workers. That’s when the lazy and shiftless are sitting on the sideline taking a check to do nothing. That’s bad.

When the economy is bad you still have those lazy people taking checks BUT you also have a whole bunch of people who are actively looking. The checks they take may keep them above water and food on their families until they land a job.

But, if you folks can’t do the math, Krugman can’t help you.

RW-(the original)

July 21st, 2010
4:19 pm

Scooter,

It’s an Equal Opportunity Instigator.

RF

July 21st, 2010
4:21 pm

cowboy- ROFL!! Thanks for the link. Now your post makes sense. Unfortunately, I’ve been reading far too many conservative blogs of late, and there are many who seriously believe some of the comedy. Any time I need a laugh, I just watch John Boehner stern-facedly discuss repooplican economic policy. These guys in charge of the GOP now must have been some serious acid users in the 60’s. Brain damage is the only excuse I can see for their thinking these days.

TaxPayer

July 21st, 2010
4:21 pm

Jay,

You know we’re talking Republicans. It’s no holds barred and the Democrats need to get that message and deal with it. There’s just nothing more underhanded and mean and hateful than a devoutly Republican Christian.

RW-(the original)

July 21st, 2010
4:22 pm

I really hope they do let the tax cuts expire so we can see what kind of verbal hoops the left will jump through to blame the Republicans for the fact that the government isn’t suddenly raking in the cash.

Finn McCool

July 21st, 2010
4:23 pm

Conservatives should stop asking questions until they can answer who we are going to pay for the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

You folks answer that one and other folks might not dismiss you as undergrads.

Finn McCool

July 21st, 2010
4:23 pm

ooops, that should read “how”, not “who”

Scooter

July 21st, 2010
4:24 pm

Jay

July 21st, 2010
4:26 pm

RW, I would agree that raising taxes in a time such as this is dangerous (for the same reason that cutting off gov’t spending is dangerous — it strangles the flow of money through the economy).

I think a tax bill that begins to gradually raise taxes over a period of years — with those hikes delayed a year or two for lower and middle-income folks — would probably be the best way economically. I also accept that cutbacks in spending must also be part of that package, and that those cutbacks — like the tax hikes — should be phased in over time rather than front-loaded in ways that would short-circuit recovery.

Granny Godzilla

July 21st, 2010
4:27 pm

I wouldn’t let Joe the Dog waste a good tinkle on the leg of any GOP Senator.

#1 Foxy Lady

July 21st, 2010
4:27 pm

‘crats rule!
‘pub drool!

SUCK IT, LOSERS!!!

jewcowboy

July 21st, 2010
4:27 pm

RF,

“Unfortunately, I’ve been reading far too many conservative blogs of late, and there are many who seriously believe some of the comedy.”

Sheesh…you must have a very high tolerance for hyper-delusional inanity. That shown on here by some, is about all I can handle.

“Brain damage is the only excuse I can see for their thinking these days.”

:)

MARK

July 21st, 2010
4:27 pm

Headline News(20 years from now)…Its Bush’s fault ..guess what guys, Bush isnt in office anymore, so his fault or not is a mute point, Senisble people would try to figure out a way out of this mess instead of always looking to the past…The fact is Obozo has not only not started to fix the problem, he has made it worse with his socialistic policies..So lets try to focus on the now for a change!

@@

July 21st, 2010
4:29 pm

I wasn’t in the hard-core Christian group? One group of leftists include me, another excludes me. I’m having an identity crisis.

The extension? Fine…when all is said and done, the conservatives can simply explain how it would’ve been nice for ALL concerned, had the money come from the stimulus being withheld.

Shute! They could even go so far as to argue that had the stimulus been placed directly in the hands of the electorate, we’d have all been better off today than we were in early 2009.

They could. Yes they could!

Jay

July 21st, 2010
4:29 pm

No, Peadawg, they are not. The stimulus was not intended to be used that way, and doing it as the Republicans insist would reduce the impact of the stimulus at a time it is still needed.

Pogo

July 21st, 2010
4:30 pm

Nothing to learn here, therefore nothing to say. Same ole “Jay-say Republicans bad, BLAH-BLAH-BLAH-BLAH”. Oh, there is that little thing of our deficit under Obama and his democrats approaching FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS! I guess Jay and his little posse of progessives (or lapdogs, whichever term you would prefer) here don’t care too much about saddling the youth of today with a debt that will enslave them forever. Yes, let’s pay for everything! Right Jay?

Scooter

July 21st, 2010
4:31 pm

Finn McCool

July 21st, 2010
4:23 pm

Does a tax cut have to be paid for? (serious question)

RW-(the original)

July 21st, 2010
4:34 pm

It occurs to me that I’ve been unemployed since 1994. Just think how much I could stimulate the economy if they’d get me my back checks.

MARK

July 21st, 2010
4:35 pm

Foxy Lady
You have 4 more months so eat it up while you can!

jewcowboy

July 21st, 2010
4:35 pm

I have to go…but I leave you with this…

http://pics.blameitonthevoices.com/072010/divorcing_the_bike.jpg

caution there is questionable language and some brief nudity. Have a good evening all.

RW-(the original)

July 21st, 2010
4:37 pm

Does a tax cut have to be paid for?

Scooter,

Only in leftist government speak where they make believe that all economic activity will be joyous and wonderful at all times so any dropping of the tax rates can only cost the government money. You’ll get really dizzy if you try to follow the arguments they make.

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

July 21st, 2010
4:40 pm

Well, the conservatives made their point – Obama continues to spend at record pace – and that is not lost on the American voter. This is all paving the way for governor Palin’s 2012 run. Heck, she hasn’t even announced and she is already polling even with PURKEL.

A huge win for the GOP and the America that we shall take back.

josef nix

July 21st, 2010
4:40 pm

Scooter
Sorry, just got here…was discussing the origin and meaning of life downstairs…I see our newest OEI member has informed you…it’s an exclusive club and you must have a proven track record…our founder, Paul, is away on vacation and our second in command, SoCo is away at the moment. :-)

@@

July 21st, 2010
4:40 pm

RW:

I don’t think they trust us with our money. Now ain’t that a hoot?

Scooter

July 21st, 2010
4:41 pm

Thanks again RW! I’m not rich by any means and got a tax cut. At the time I really needed it and was thankful to get it.

Jay

July 21st, 2010
4:42 pm

Really Pogo? A deficit approaching four trillion dollars?

You might want to get your basic facts right before you try your hand at fact-based snark. The deficit is projected to peak this year at around $1.6 trillion and then begin to fall.

Most of that deficit comes from spending already baked into the system when Obama arrived, plus the decline in gov’t revenue thanks to the economy he inherited. The ‘09 deficit, for example, was already projected at $1.2 trillion before he even took the oath of office.

In other words, it is not, for the most part, a product of new spending that he has sought.

If of course you want to be factual about your fact-based snark…

Pogo

July 21st, 2010
4:44 pm

OOOOPS! As I stated yesterday, the Obama Whitehouse threw Sherrod under the bus to protect Obama’s and the Democrats progressive hold on American politics (the Fall Elections). They are using this NAACP/Teaparty race thing now to try to drum up some kind of life in their loyal “base” and it would have looked mighty bad if “one of their own” was displaying racisim, now wouldn’t it? Now they are apologizing to her. How much coverage you going to give on the Whitehouse ordering the firing Jay or will you do as you always do and ignore the important story for the ones that are more titulating and diverting? As a journalist, I must say, you are pretty sad. I don’t really think you should call yourself a journalist (if you in fact do). I think you are pretty much a political commentator who is wrapped in Keynesian economics and Socialist doctrine. And that pretty much sums it up.

Scooter

July 21st, 2010
4:46 pm

Good afternoon josef! I don’t make a good EOI. I didn’t even get one shoe thrown at me! :grin:

MARK

July 21st, 2010
4:48 pm

Jay

July 21st, 2010
4:49 pm

Your professional advice is appreciated, Pogo.

Jay

July 21st, 2010
4:50 pm

My facts are correct, Mark, and your source only confirms their accuracy.

Finn McCool

July 21st, 2010
4:50 pm

Vilsack is offering the lady her job back. I’m sure the righty wingnuts will think he was pressured by Democrats.

I’d imagine Vilsack will check his sources a little better next time he watches a witch hunt on a conservative blog site.

MARK

July 21st, 2010
4:53 pm

Finn McCool
that should go for the White House as well

RW-(the original)

July 21st, 2010
4:53 pm

That 1.2 trillion for 2009 includes all 700 billion in TARP loans with no allowance for them being paid back. I guess Senator Obama could have stepped in then instead of voting for his “inheritance.”

Finn McCool

July 21st, 2010
4:53 pm

posting “facts” from the Heritage Foundation? hehehe. That’s rich.

Union

July 21st, 2010
4:53 pm

hello all from sunny california..

“In a saner, more compassionate world, such acts would be inconceivable” so true jay.. in a saner world.. we would have a president that would help increase employment.. outside of the federal govt that is..

MARK

July 21st, 2010
4:53 pm

Wow Jay, I didnt realize until now how completley clueless you really are

#1 Foxy Lady

July 21st, 2010
4:55 pm

MARK,
you will suck it your whole life!!!

Finn McCool

July 21st, 2010
4:55 pm

Does a tax cut have to be paid for?

Don’t know what a deficit is do you? How do you think we pay for all this we have? Interstate system, postal service, clean water, safe food, inspected restaurants? Tax dollars. You don’t collect tax dollars we don’t have all this stuff. We don’t have all this stuff we don’t have America.

MARK

July 21st, 2010
4:57 pm

In the first independent analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that President Obama’s budget would rack up massive deficits even after the economy recovers, forcing the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade….

How about the CBO…is that a good enough source for you!

Union

July 21st, 2010
4:57 pm

finn you are correct.. we need to collect more tax dollars.. maybe if some people had jobs they could pay taxes.. or maybe we could “spread” the tax burden around a little?

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

July 21st, 2010
4:57 pm

Lookey here, I’ve had lond career in the financial business and am generally considered a pretty astute guy. I played the National, I killed a bear, i financed transaction that noone else could finance and pretty well incubated the leveraged recap boom of the 90s.

That said, there is only one that that will bring this economy around and it ain’t what Obama’s doing. It is a huge tax cut for the top 2%, so that we can feel good about the economy and begin making jobs for the folk that need them. Look at all the money Oabam stuck into temporary census jobs and all the bragging he did about creating those jobs, we in three months there won’t be one job standing. He could have cut our taxes by 3% which would have been cost less and would have created a ton of jobs that would exist for a long time.

AmVet

July 21st, 2010
4:59 pm

Union, do you feel like a cat in a room full of dogs out there? (grin.)

MARK

July 21st, 2010
4:59 pm

Thats fine Foxy Lady, I’ll suck without a Democratic controlled Congress!

Finn McCool

July 21st, 2010
5:00 pm

Hehehe, even the Heritage foundation facts show just how bad the last President was. From a surplus in 2000 to a negative of $1.5 trillion. All but one of those red Obama bars are “projections” into the future. Let’s wonder if a conservative think tank would show a Democrat with good numbers? Hehehe

You righty-tighties gotta do better than this…

Brett

July 21st, 2010
5:01 pm

The GOPsters have always been prisoners of their own empty hearts and minds. Babbling forth their easy-listening patriotism – while they have destroyed, corrupted, and criminalized most of the Nation. While feeding fear & ignorance to the unwashed, rancid masses of Little People. Intellectual insects & repressive rodents.

Vinny

July 21st, 2010
5:01 pm

Jay: “Buckagon, who will pay the additional debt created by extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which will have an impact on the debt 20 times or even 100 times that of helping the unemployed?”

This statement by Jay reflect the typical thinking of a Lib that money that people earn first belongs to the government and by their mercy they allow people to keep a certain amount.

Newsflash for Jay – This money does NOT belong to the government, and therefore it does not “cost” the government anything if the tax cuts continue. It costs the “wageearner” if the tax cuts expire.

Get it?

AmVet

July 21st, 2010
5:01 pm

MARK, are you related to either NiF or LA/whodat?

TaxPayer

July 21st, 2010
5:03 pm

Hey! I’ve been paying them payroll taxes since 1969. Give me my back pay and I’ll be stimulated too.